24bit?

[DrXparaMental]

Has anyone ever noticed a significant audible difference when choosing the 24 bit recording option? Is this a good idea? (choosing 24bit recording)

[nebulae]

Yes this is a very good idea. Most music is pretty dynamic, so the extended range is important. But that's not the only reason...the more you process a sound, the more you can degrade it, and so having higher resolution in the audio will enable you to do more to the audio before you hear any degradation.

Bottom line, 24-bit audio takes 1.5x CPU because it's that much more info to process, but it's totally worth it.

[DrXparaMental]

Yes this is a very good idea. Most music is pretty dynamic, so the extended range is important. But that's not the only reason...the more you process a sound, the more you can degrade it, and so having higher resolution in the audio will enable you to do more to the audio before you hear any degradation.

Bottom line, 24-bit audio takes 1.5x CPU because it's that much more info to process, but it's totally worth it.

Thanks as always nebulae! You know I appreciate your help. From now on everything gets recorded in 24bit.

[nebulae]

Yes this is a very good idea. Most music is pretty dynamic, so the extended range is important. But that's not the only reason...the more you process a sound, the more you can degrade it, and so having higher resolution in the audio will enable you to do more to the audio before you hear any degradation.

Bottom line, 24-bit audio takes 1.5x CPU because it's that much more info to process, but it's totally worth it.

Thanks as always nebulae! You know I appreciate your help. From now on everything gets recorded in 24bit.

Cool, you're always very welcome. Just to make sure we're on the same page, I highly recommend recording at 24-bit 44.1 khz audio. Then, when you mix down your audio, if you master it in another application, mix down to 32-bit 44.1 khz, and in your external mastering app, downsample to 16 bit 44.1 khz audio with dithering. If you're doing it straight in Live, use a limiter in the mastering chain that has dithering, and mixdown directly to 16-bit 44.1 audio for CD burning. Let me know if you have questions.

[mdb]

Oh, yeah.. theres HUGE difference from 16 bit to 24 bit.. For lamens, its just much more rich with sound. Higher highs, lower lows, Clearer, more open sound. Your capturing more accurate representation of what you recorded because its able to sample the audio many more times a sec then 16 bit. Think of it as a photo snapshots over time. The faster i can tak snapshots while something is moving the more i can show that it is moving to you later on when you watch it. You wouldnt get a fluid motion if i took the snapshots slowly... Ya dig?

In the end, it all has to come back to 44-16 anyway for the consumer market. You can blame Sony for keeping us back in time with 44 16 CD's. We should all be listening to Super Audio CD's right now... Then you could actually hear how we REALLY intended for you to hear it.. Sucks..

[fluffage]

Oh, yeah.. theres HUGE difference from 16 bit to 24 bit.. For lamens, its just much more rich with sound. Higher highs, lower lows, Clearer, more open sound. Your capturing more accurate representation of what you recorded because its able to sample the audio many more times a sec then 16 bit. Think of it as a photo snapshots over time. The faster i can tak snapshots while something is moving the more i can show that it is moving to you later on when you watch it. You wouldnt get a fluid motion if i took the snapshots slowly... Ya dig?

You're confusing bit depth with sample rate. Bit depth has nothing to do with how many samples are measured/recorded per second, but rather the 'accuracy' of each sample. There are 2^16 possible sample values for each sample with 16-bit, and 2^24 with 24-bit, making it 256X more accurate.

The benefits of 24-bit are significantly lowered quantisation error, thanks to the increased accuracy, which in turn, as has been mentioned, means you can process the audio much further without degradation (think of the errors as being magnified with each new process).

16-bit isn't a terrible format as an end product, good dithering will give it an effective resolution of 18- to 20-bit or so, but until that very last step you want to remain at 24-bit or higher.

And SuperAudio CD is very good, yes, but uses a completely different digital audio format than PCM, which is used virtually everywhere else (CDs, DVDs, computers, etc etc).

Robin

[Robert Henke]

... 24 bit does _not_ need 1.5 more CPU than 16 bit.
a direct realtion between CPU and audio quality is only true for sample rate, where
88.2 kHz in most cases indeed means 2 x CPU than 44.1k.

24bit increases file size, and as a result HD traffic, so it could affect the number of tracks you can play back at the same time from HD, but CPU load is in most cases same as 16bit, since internally we process audio with 32bit (float) or 64bit (float) anyway.

Robert

[nebulae]

... 24 bit does _not_ need 1.5 more CPU than 16 bit.
a direct realtion between CPU and audio quality is only true for sample rate, where
88.2 kHz in most cases indeed means 2 x CPU than 44.1k.

24bit increases file size, and as a result HD traffic, so it could affect the number of tracks you can play back at the same time from HD, but CPU load is in most cases same as 16bit, since internally we process audio with 32bit (float) or 64bit (float) anyway.

Robert

well, hello stranger! we've missed you!

also, thanks for correcting me (punk ass!)

hey, wait a sec...64-bit?!?!? in Live 7??!?

[Tone Deft]

Oh, yeah.. theres HUGE difference from 16 bit to 24 bit.. For lamens, its just much more rich with sound. Higher highs, lower lows, Clearer, more open sound. Your capturing more accurate representation of what you recorded because its able to sample the audio many more times a sec then 16 bit. Think of it as a photo snapshots over time. The faster i can tak snapshots while something is moving the more i can show that it is moving to you later on when you watch it. You wouldnt get a fluid motion if i took the snapshots slowly... Ya dig?

In the end, it all has to come back to 44-16 anyway for the consumer market. You can blame Sony for keeping us back in time with 44 16 CD's. We should all be listening to Super Audio CD's right now... Then you could actually hear how we REALLY intended for you to hear it.. Sucks..

44/16 can sound absolutely outstanding if you now how to master correctly. In audio arguments it's easy to take the more is more approach. Bose sells their CRAP like this, better sound through marketing, they rip people off.

Given that I would say that by the books 24 bit sounds better, is it significant?? No. Most of the time music is heard in noisy environments, in the car, on mp3s, while others are talking... Most of the time you're also not using speakers/headphones that can bring about the significance of 24 bit. Do you have monitors that are more than $1k each in a properly tuned room?

I believe track makers around here have suggested 44/16 to take to the mastering house because that's what they prefer as input.

Most of us are hobbyists, we should be learning to master tracks and use Live to its fullest rather than thinking my tracks will sound better if I use 24 bit rather than 16 bit, they won't. Can you honestly say your tracks are SO well mastered that 16 bit is holding you back?

I agree with your approach, just saying that there's an irony there.

IMO hard drives are cheap but you can save space with 16 bit.


So... Robert, you're saying that Live 7 comes with a Slicer plug in?? Cool.

[hacktheplanet]

Ready for an obtuse analogy?

So there are two staircases. Staircase A has 16 steps, and staircase B has 24. The next floor is 32 feet up. This means that the steps on staircase A are 2 feet tall each, and the steps on staircase B are 1.3 feet high. Yeah, I know, big stairs. Shut it.

Anyway, suppose you want to be exactly 13 feet high. You can do it on staircase B, just walk up 10 steps and you will be exactly 13 feet high. On staircase A, you will have to go up 7 steps, but you will still be 1 foot too high.

Now that you're at your current height (13 or 14 feet depending on the staircase), you somehow have the desire to do a little dance while on each step to impress your mom. On staircase B, you will have 14 chances, and therefore a better chance of impressing your mom. On Staircase A you will only have 9 chances, so it will be slightly more difficult to impress her.

So using staircase B might be a little more work, since there are more stairs, but it's easy to impress your mom doing dances. Moms love it when you perform for them. With your mom at the top of the stairs, taking staircase B will give you more chances to impress her.

[Tone Deft]

planet - lmfao, "shut it"

Check wikipedia for "dynamic range" that's 90% of what bit depth is all about.

[leedsquietman]

2 schools of thought here.

24 bit definately gives you more headroom and I think it gives the hobbyist more leeway for errors etc. In 16 bit, you had to try and get your levels hot but without clipping for optimal sound, 24 bit gives you more of a comfort zone to record lower and still have it sound good and run less risk of clipping. I also agree that in my experience, that where you are using a lot of miced instruments, it does give you more depth and tone. If you're using vstis within the box though, the difference is much less.

Legendary mixer David Pensado (Justin Timberlake, Pussycat Dolls, Mariah Carey etc) says that 16/44.1 is 'totally fine' and he says 'show me someone who complains about a format, I'll show you someone who doesn;t know how to use it. The math behind that may be solid but really. it just takes knowledge and a little extra work to make it sound great' (this is in the january 2007 sound on sound magazine).

The one deciding factor (especially for those with older computers) is the fact that 16 bit files take up 50% less filesize, so those without large arrays of vast HDDs sometimes go this route, especially if basing a song around loops or samples that are already recorded at 16/44.

My personal preference is 24/44. Most mastering houses I know like you to send files to them at 24/88.2 or 24/96.

[DrXparaMental]

"I also agree that in my experience, that where you are using a lot of miced instruments, it does give you more depth and tone. If you're using vstis within the box though, the difference is much less."

Could you please explain this difference? "miced instruments vs. vstis"

Forgive the embryonic nature of the question, but to me as a beginner this would seem important with respect to recording the best sound clips possible with respect to the difference.

Is the "within the box vsti" like simpler/impulse and the miced stuff like stylus rmx or reactor? I am living within the magic age of bliss if you know what I mean. thanks,

[leedsquietman]

Within the box is a term meaning mixing solely within the computer, using DAWS and/or software plugins only. Not routing to hardware mixers or hardware units such as Manley compressors or SSE desks etc.

Capturing audio signals with microphones is an art form of it;s own with a lot of dynamic range and possible problems to mess things up. vstis/softsynths etc. are either processed using wavetables or generated synthesis and much of the audio processing is controlled within the software, leaving it less prone to fluctuations compared to running it out into an amp and then micing it and recording it that way. Although there are times where this is desirable (if you get your mics positioned well, great pres, know how to engineer a little) but the quality of most vstis now and the extral controls gives more possibilities without the inconvenience of micing it all up, so it's not very widespread.

What I mean particularly are vocals, guitars, sax, etc to my ears, often sound a tad fuller and richer in 24 bit mode.

[mdb]

Yes, your right.. I did reverse them. I dont know what i was thinking when i wrote that. I think it was the weed. I was talking about Sample Rate.. not bit Depth..

Feel free to slap me with a trout.